July 23, 2008
— Ace Fark had the story and the headline.
It does make sense, though, I have to admit. They're writing for a smaller and smaller -- err, "more selective" -- audience every day, and that small audience tends to be upscale liberals who don't mind high newspaper prices, just as they don't mind spending $6.00 on a cup of fucking coffee at Starbucks. The Times, like Starbucks, is for them a tribal signifier, and the fact that it's overpriced is, if anything, a feature, not a bug.
Keeps the riff-raff out, you know.
Still, I'd like to see them go all the way up to $4.00 a copy -- perhaps they'd be profitable at that price point -- so that we can say "Welcome to New York, where ten dollars still gets you a newspaper and a cup of coffee."
Posted by: narciso at July 23, 2008 04:19 PM (8nB5X)
It seems to me that they need to raise the price to $10 a copy. In order to help advance alternative news sources that don't destroy the environment.
Posted by: Darth Randall at July 23, 2008 04:25 PM (oLULt)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at July 23, 2008 04:28 PM (np0pW)
Posted by: mesablue at July 23, 2008 04:34 PM (5yNaE)
Posted by: eman at July 23, 2008 04:34 PM (bXWSG)
We're actually in negotiations with Mr. Sadr for the rights to work with him on a business book. Our tentative title is "It's Not the Bottom Line That Counts, it's the Press Coverage and Cocktail Party Invites". I think it'll be required at all the best business schools in no time.
Posted by: Pinch Sulzberger at July 23, 2008 04:36 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: TH at July 23, 2008 04:44 PM (2SWnr)
Posted by: John Ryan at July 23, 2008 04:47 PM (TcoRJ)
Starbucks isn't a coffee shop. It's a desert store.
This NYT price thing is starting to remind me of pets.com. Maybe the sockpuppet is free.
Posted by: Ace's liver at July 23, 2008 04:48 PM (eSqCK)
a san fran airport shop had them at $9 when i was there last.
oh. and CODFISH!
Posted by: QUESI LOMPOPO MUGABE FELITI OBAMA (COUSIN) at July 23, 2008 04:49 PM (8p6GI)
I'd give you a complimentary subscription for your slavish devotion to liberal causes. Unfortunately, we can't afford it.
Posted by: Pinch Sulzberger at July 23, 2008 04:50 PM (hlYel)
yah- and converted into aussie currency which was 55cent to the US $ that was about 14bucks or something
Posted by: QUESI LOMPOPO MUGABE FELITI OBAMA (COUSIN) at July 23, 2008 04:52 PM (8p6GI)
Posted by: Che Pizza at July 23, 2008 05:03 PM (RLBRw)
John, by saying you now regard the NYT as comparable to the Washington Times, I'm fairly certain you've posted what they would regard as the most offensive insult on this thread. I won't argue.
Posted by: AD at July 23, 2008 05:11 PM (NNNPc)
OK, help a 'tard out here. Am I supposed to be going to ace.mu.nu or ace.new.mu.nu, or ace.fu? WTF? It's like a freakin' shell game at the canival.
Oh, as a pre-emptive strke, don't offer dailykos.mu.nu or huffpo.pu.wu or any other wise cracks like that.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: pistolero at July 23, 2008 05:17 PM (hBUN7)
Posted by: Terry at July 23, 2008 05:20 PM (u0hRZ)
Posted by: VRWC Agent at July 23, 2008 05:24 PM (Z3AmO)
Posted by: Barack H. Obama at July 23, 2008 05:27 PM (vxGjP)
Posted by: Lee Iacocca at July 23, 2008 05:47 PM (TPRbZ)
Posted by: VRWC Agent at July 23, 2008 06:05 PM (Z3AmO)
Posted by: Nobody knows I'm a sock puppet at July 23, 2008 06:51 PM (t6qNW)
Posted by: lemmiwinks at July 23, 2008 06:59 PM (Qv6BF)
smaller and smaller -- err, "more selective"
ace, you are solid gold!
Posted by: lloyd at July 23, 2008 07:12 PM (7DBFK)
NYT Raises Price of Copy a Quarter Up to $1.50
Good luck with that.
Any minute now, they're going to ask that the government socialize nationalize the newspaper so people can afford it. Oh I know, maybe they can offer newspaper stamps.
The type of people who read it are the type of people who will see this as reasonable.
Posted by: pajama momma at July 23, 2008 08:04 PM (f3xJa)
$1.50 doesn't sound bad for a pad of blank paper delivered to your house every morning.
Posted by: Stinky Esposito at July 23, 2008 08:09 PM (XSmBC)
Posted by: not_steve_in_hb at July 23, 2008 08:09 PM (SsvUp)
Posted by: Penfold at July 23, 2008 08:14 PM (mKeF6)
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a bill is introduced to do just that. Maybe even subsidized radios so the children can listen to NPR.
Posted by: Bart at July 23, 2008 08:17 PM (Wy08N)
Apparently Spinal Tap is running the New York Times.
Posted by: AD at July 23, 2008 08:18 PM (NNNPc)
A couple of years ago I use to go to the Oregon coast on a regular basis, a small town called Manzanita. Very left wing. They have a coffee shop in town, Manzanita New and Espresso or whatever that had tons and tons of magazines, a bunch of which were hard core lefty socialist, dope smoker today, whatever. National Review... nope. Anyway, they also had Tibetan Prayer Flags, aka napkins for $18 and buttons of all sorts and sizes, "corporations suck", "power to the people", "people not profits". They charged $6 for the NYT and even though I would always order the same thing, 2 large lattes, not to complicated, the total was never the same. $6 one day, $6.80 the next, $6.45 the next.
Eventually I found another coffee shop.... that had much hotter (and less butch) women working the counter.
Posted by: AndrewsDad at July 23, 2008 08:29 PM (bSdbt)
I gotta learn to post on the old site so these don't become redundant.
Posted by: AD at July 23, 2008 08:33 PM (NNNPc)
Posted by: grc at July 23, 2008 08:41 PM (NhH5C)
Posted by: pistolero at July 23, 2008 08:46 PM (hBUN7)
Who, frankly (pun intended) was a much better theatre critic than he is a political commentator.
Posted by: cheshirecat at July 23, 2008 09:09 PM (zuJzg)
What's the latest from Paul Krugman? He was talking shit about the economy since Bush's first day in office. Now that we're in a economic slowdown his vagina must be all wet.
Posted by: Bart at July 23, 2008 09:15 PM (F9+nM)
Posted by: The obvious at July 23, 2008 09:15 PM (1g+FW)
This has been your best day of posts evah!
Posted by: DL at July 23, 2008 09:33 PM (BfPzY)
Posted by: someone at July 23, 2008 09:46 PM (2z2WN)
The NYT weekend edition is the only thing keeping the paper going, and Rupert Murdoch is gunning directly at that with a competing WSJ product.
The weekend WSJ should be hitting its stride this time next year, and will be the final nail in the NYT coffin. They're already strangling the NYT by offering ad space for less.
Good old Rupert. He's the greatest thing since whatever the last greatest thing was.
I just wish a bunch of rich conservatives could buy one of the alphabets. It might just save this country.
Posted by: Dogstar at July 23, 2008 10:31 PM (6AcsH)
#25 - oh c'mon! -he stole that whole spiel from the 'spinal tap' movie.
And by the way, Barack Obama has the tastiest nutsack I have ever had the privilege to feast my moist tongue and full lips upon.
Posted by: John Ryan's prolapsed rectum at July 23, 2008 10:51 PM (vNJsi)
Posted by: epobirs at July 24, 2008 12:17 AM (dei5/)
Sure, that'd be great if you had little kids. We got a roll-end of newsprint when I was a kid and had weeks of fun with it.
Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at July 24, 2008 12:23 AM (ac2qn)
Posted by: tcbevo at July 24, 2008 12:24 AM (inTsh)
Posted by: tcbevo at July 24, 2008 12:28 AM (inTsh)
Hell, I'm a better theatre critic (let alone political commentator) than Frank Rich, and I haven't been to the theatre in years. And only to the movies about twice a year.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at July 24, 2008 01:13 AM (1Sf5X)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 24, 2008 03:09 AM (uhncL)
I don't fuckin get this.
Columbia has now admitted rescuers posed as FARC terrorists, Red Cross medics, and journalists??
How many of them were there?
The FARC camp was just suddenly overrun with strange new FARC command, red cross medics, journalists, mimes, and dwarves.
How many disguises can you wear at once?
Posted by: Entropy at July 24, 2008 04:04 AM (m6c4H)
Ah, OK. Would you believe "red cross medics, journalists, mimes, and dwarves"?
Posted by: Agent 86 at July 24, 2008 04:35 AM (RLBRw)
Posted by: Techie at July 24, 2008 04:39 AM (KZR2J)
Man in Che t-shirt with a red cross armband holding a CNN microphone, an AK-47 and a mackerel enters the FARC camp:
'Hola! I am a former heavyweight boxer who was down on his luck following a career ending motorcylce accident, who recently climbed back on the wagon and joined up with FARC like you, posing as a reporter doing undercover work as a red cross worker who's pretending to be mute to get disability AA preferance, with a PhD in climatology, doing an expose on how deforestation effects global warming, while disguised as a local fishmonger. Please show me where you keep our hostages, my comrades!'
Posted by: Entropy at July 24, 2008 05:12 AM (m6c4H)
Posted by: John Cleese at July 24, 2008 05:37 AM (RLBRw)
Posted by: MAJ Arkay at July 24, 2008 05:39 AM (iFIPs)
Posted by: Potosi Joel at July 24, 2008 05:44 AM (TPRbZ)
Posted by: dfbaskwill at July 24, 2008 06:02 AM (4L5Tl)
I have no problem with practically anything they do.
FARC is not signatory to the Geneva conventions so Columbia has no obligations to follow them while dealing with it. Nor does FARC follow the Geneva conventions.
The 'McCain' argument is half baked. 'We need to act good - so other countries will act good. If we don't act good, how can we expect them to?'
The problem is they allready aren't. Why doesn't the same logic apply backwards? If they don't act good, why the hell should we be expected to?
If we act good no matter what out of principle : Why the hell should they? There's no incentive here!
The NGO types and media are essentially on the side of terrorists, because they disproportionately aid them. The standing army has it's own medics, it's own field hospitals, and it's own PR department. The terrorists do not.
If Red Cross can't work with FARC without worrying about being shot by them (because Columbian soldiers disguise themselves as Red Cross) I say good. Then the Red Cross might want to think about not working with them. At least not until FARC starts upholding Geneva convention guidelines and then expect Columbia to as well.
In short, if NGO's want Geneva convention status they should be working with Geneva convention signatories (or at least, abiders). And not getting Red Cross help would at least provide some leverage, some actual incentive, benefit/disadvantage to whether or not FARC follows some of the 'rules of war'.
Terrorists (like Hamas) allready do disguise themselves as red cross. Yet we don't worry about standing governments (like Irsael and Columbia) shooting red cross because of this tactic, do we? No.
Human actions are like lightning - we follow the path of least resistance. Want to control where it goes, set up a conduit. Want the rules of war followed, you have to make it worthwhile to follow them, incentivize following and disincentivize deviance. You can't just enforce the rules on one side regardless, and then hope the other follows out of just the goodness of their heart. It winds up being masochistic, like pacivism, that inherantly supports the most aggressive, recalcitrant side.
Columbia can use biological/chemical agents on them for all I care. When FARK starts signing (and abiding) by treaties, then I'll expect the same of their opponents.
Posted by: Entropy at July 24, 2008 06:16 AM (m6c4H)
I don't get the starbucks hate... a large coffee is $1.70, same as I pay at the cafeteria at work. At least where I live, it's just the place where normal people can get coffee... maybe it's different if you live in a big city.
And I can make a cup of coffee at home for about 0.02. What's your point?
Posted by: Steve L. at July 24, 2008 06:33 AM (o0YD+)
It's burned. They've trained millions of people to love the taste of water strained through charcoal.
Posted by: lauraw at July 24, 2008 06:37 AM (DbybK)
Posted by: Trimegistus at July 24, 2008 07:19 AM (7HBUF)
Posted by: ParisParamus at July 24, 2008 07:43 AM (ETj1R)
Hey now, don't be hatin. You know we're gonna reconnect this business to you, our customers by returning an "emotional attachment" to Starbucks.
I'm shooting for an emotion somewhere between "disdain" and outright "loathing".
Posted by: Howard Schultz at July 24, 2008 07:44 AM (pzen5)
Posted by: himmi at December 07, 2008 09:38 PM (nWyuK)
Convert m2ts to DVD is a splendid video conversion software which can convert m2ts files to DVD on Windows with excellent output quality and high conversion speed.
M2TS to DVD Converter is such a powerful conversion tool that you can set video brightness, contrast, saturation, crop video, trim video and even merge multiple files into one single file, batch convertion is also supported. With M2TS to DVD Converter, you can also convert your videos to any format and put them on all popular portable players such as iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, Zune, PSP/PS3, etc. Free download M2TS to DVD Converter and enjoy your colorful multimedia life now!
Posted by: melissa at October 26, 2009 01:52 AM (oPgHP)
Posted by: 23sds at September 27, 2010 07:56 AM (qm0Bl)
cheap oakley cheap oakley
pandora uk pandora uk
cheap nhl jerseys cheap nhl jerseys
nhl hockey jerseys nhl hockey jerseys
Posted by: hockey jerseys at June 01, 2011 08:53 PM (ZN5Bn)
Posted by: SEO Pakistan at November 01, 2011 02:35 AM (Q7nl0)
63 queries taking 0.4832 seconds, 300 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.